Subject: FW: A modification to the P1647 PAR
From: Brophy, Dennis (dennisb@model.com)
Date: Thu May 22 2003 - 19:09:11 PDT
-----Original Message-----
From: Brophy, Dennis
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 7:08 PM
To: Paul J. Menchini (E-mail); 'stds-dasc-sc@dasc.org'
Cc: 'dasc@dasc.org'
Subject: FW: A modification to the P1647 PAR
Paul,
Since DASC bylaws require membership in DASC to be a chair of any of our working groups, all chairs who are not DASC members have automatically surrendered their chair positions. I suggest that you immediately asses which of the chairs are not members and that we call for an election from the DASC membership to fill those vacancies. I am more than willing to serve as chair for some of those vacant positions. I call for immediate nominations and elections for those vacated positions.
I note that the 1364 position is vacated and wish to nominate myself in the election for the new chair.
I also think you need to cull the DASC email reflectors and remove all from those reflectors that do not have membership credentials or ex-officio positions that the DASC deems necessary for the operation of the DASC.
Regards,
Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Brophy, Dennis
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 6:57 PM
To: 'Yaron Kashai'; stds-dasc-sc@server.dasc.org;
vlang-l@verificationlanguage.org; Paul J. Menchini
Cc: j.haasz@ieee.org; Gabesmoretti@aol.com
Subject: RE: A modification to the P1647 PAR
All,
I think are re-ballot by the VLSG and the DASC is necessary.
I object to the VLSG Chair making a unilateral decision to change the PAR without consent of the VLSG and the DASC. According I call for a re-vote by the VLSG and then by the DASC once that is completed.
2nd VLSG CHAIR CHANGE
=====================
In my assessment, the change to the PAR is sustentative. If I not mistaken, the PAR which was submitted to NesCom via DASC must be approved by the working group and the sponsor. Without the inclusion of the roadmap information in the scope of the PAR, the PAR's meaning is altered in a substantive manner.
My opinion is the PAR degenerates to the standardization of the proprietary 'e' language solely and rejects what I perceive to be the VLSG's desire to ensure that through the VLSG's standard's process the submission is open to changes or additions that the VLSG deems appropriate for the first version. (That is what the VLSG said they wanted.)
Removing that wording from the scope changes what was approved by the VLSG and places into question if that can be considered during the standardization process. I believe a re-vote of the VLSG and then by the DASC is needed. I think an email to the reflectors in not sufficient proof of consent by either the VLSG or DASC.
VOTING IRREGULARITIES & DUES PAYMENTS
=====================================
The DASC has only 23 members that are eligible to vote in DASC sponsored work.
Of the 261 that were eligible to vote for revision #1 of the VLSG PAR, 207 voted. Of the 207 that voted only 2 are DASC members.
For a vote to be recognized in a DASC sponsored activity, you must be a DASC member. I am shocked to see the abuse of such a rule on this grand scale. The VLSG chair should resubmit the corrected vote tally. Paul, I also think the DASC Chair should certify that the DASC Steering Committee votes to approve promotion of this PAR to the IEEE need you to certify there were made by accredited DASC members.
The rule is DASC membership requires a $50 payment. If the payee is not an SA member, we pay their SA fee. If they are an SA member, the DASC membership fee is $40. In recent message from the DASC chair, chairs of DASC sponsored activities were reminded of the need for DASC membership. I think the voting record provided to the DASC
If this is not corrected, then the integrity of the IEEE processes and the DASC are placed into serious question of abuse and manipulation. I propose that a DASC meeting be held immediately after the VASG meeting on Friday at DAC. This issue needs to be discussed and addressed as soon as possible.
Best regards,
Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Yaron Kashai [mailto:yaron@verisity.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 6:24 PM
To: stds-dasc-sc@server.dasc.org; vlang-l@verificationlanguage.org; Paul
J. Menchini
Cc: j.haasz@ieee.org; Gabesmoretti@aol.com
Subject: A modification to the P1647 PAR
Dear VLSG members and DASC-SC members,
An early review by a member of NesCom alerted me to a
potential issue with the PAR.
The scope section (section 12) of the PAR should not
contain references to a future roadmap. Section 12 of
the current version of the PAR contains a reference to
section 18. In section 18, there is a reference to a
future roadmap - documenting the original wording
decided by the SG.
Based on this input I have decided to revise the PAR
and remove the reference in section 12. The revised
PAR is attached.
This is a minor modification that does not require
a formal approval by the SG or the DASC - at the same
time I would ask you to kindly review the attached PAR
and inform me of any issues you may have.
Best regards,
-- yaron
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu May 22 2003 - 19:18:15 PDT